In the background of the case, the ruling outlines the rise of flavored tobacco products and its popularity with youth. The city of Philadelphia reported that 81 percent of youth who used tobacco reported having started with a flavored tobacco product. This trend was more prevalent in low-income and minority neighborhoods–29 percent of Philadelphians at or below the poverty line smoke, compared to 19 percent of those living above the poverty line. Also, 23 percent of Americans in Philadelphia smoke, compared to just 17 percent of white residents. The city names these statistics as reasons for passing Ordinance 180457.
CAA and the other tobacco businesses filed a complaint in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas seeking declamatory and injunctive relief, as well as money damages. The city removed the complaint to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, leading to CAA and the other plaintiffs taking their complaint to the Eastern District Court where they pushed for a preliminary injunction. CAA and the other tobacco businesses argued that the ordinance violated the plaintiff’s right to substantive due process, that the ordinance was unconstitutionally vague and that the ordinance was preempted. Since that original filing, the plaintiffs dropped their federal constitutional claims in favor of its preemption arguments.
For all the latest legislation news impacting the tobacco industry, click here.
 against the city of Philadelphia's flavored tobacco ban.){kind=link}